If there’s anything to take out of this thread, it’s that the anti-vaccine/“cautious” crowd has based their entire perspective on fear, ignorance, and arrogance with no sources.
-
Friendly reminder: The politics section is a place where a lot of differing opinions are raised. You may not like what you read here but it is someone's opinion. As long as the debate is respectful you are free to debate freely. Also, the views and opinions expressed by forum members may not necessarily reflect those of GBAtemp. Messages that the staff consider offensive or inflammatory may be removed in line with existing forum terms and conditions.
Covid-19 vaccine
- Thread starter x65943
- Start date
- Views 187,153
- Replies 3,769
- Likes 10
It is not. It is based on the fact that, by not getting vaccinated if you can be vaccinated, you participate to allowing the illness in question (be it COVID or anything else really) to spread and potentially hit vulnerable people that cannot be vaccinated and are at more risk of getting severe forms of those illnesses.
Question yourself why in France for example, it is mandatory to have your children vaccinated against measles (if they can be, obviously children that suffer conditions making them unable to be vaccinated are exempt) if you want to send them to public schools. It's merely because the benefit of vaccinating against that (and many other illnesses) far outweighs the risk that we take by allowing a potential cluster of this illness to form in schools if even one of the children were to bring it there.
Pure logic based on facts about vaccines and afferent illnesses that have been known for decades (for almost as ling as vaccination has been a thing, in fact).
--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
Also it's not saying you are assaulting people. It's saying that you are taking a higher risk towards them, when you could go the other way around and take less risks towards them. That makes you morally responsible towards them if you take risks with their health for your own comfort.
Also also, for the love of god: you cannot get "natural immunity" (labelling immunity as natural or unnatural is a complete nonsense btw) without being exposed to the thing. You can be exposed to the actual illness and take risks for your life and the lives of others or be exposed to a reduced form of it or a recognisable part of it using vaccines and get a far greater immunity response that takes way less risks for both your life and the lives of others around you (because you won't be spreading the illness so much if you get it, in the cases it's contagious like COVID, and you reduce the risk that you yourself make a grave form of it).
That is actual, documented science. It has been documented dozens, if not hundreds, of times for decades, on several illnesses.
Last edited by RocaBOT,
It's dishonest and absurd of you to repeatedly take the fact that the vaccines significantly reduce the odds of contracting and spreading COVID-19 and rephrase it this way. Nobody is talking about anything else. You're arguing against a strawman. I cannot overstate this. I expect it to stop now.
When you're interacting with people in, for example, a store that you do not own, not having to wear a mask during a pandemic is a privilege, yes.
It is immoral. If you don't get vaccinated, your odds of contracting and spreading the disease to other people are significant higher than if you were vaccinated. If you are unvaccinated and you don't wear a mask, the odds are even higher than that. There is a moral imperative to get vaccinated, and there is a moral imperative (and in a lot of cases, an actual requirement) to wear a mask if you are unvaccinated.
Regarding the topic of conversation, there are only two choices: get vaccinated or don't. The latter comes with significantly higher chances of spreading disease to other people, so there is a moral imperative to do the former.
Consistently = a lot
Also, what you keep saying is a false dilemma isn't actually a false dilemma if it's true.
Refusing the vaccine is anti-science and immoral.
A choice does have to be made between getting the vaccine and not getting the vaccine.
- Fact: This cardiologist incorrectly stated that the vaccines have caused thousands of deaths and hospitalizations.
- Fact: This cardiologist incorrectly, and hyperbolically, stated that the vaccines are "the most lethal toxic biologic agent ever injected into a human body in American history."
- Fact: This cardiologist incorrectly stated that natural immunity from COVID-19 is "way better" than getting the COVID-19 vaccine.
- Fact: This cardiologist incorrectly stated COVID-19 survivors "can’t get the virus," so they don’t need to be vaccinated.
- Fact: This cardiologist incorrectly stated the vaccines' spike proteins "damage blood vessels and causes blood clotting."
- Fact: This cardiologist incorrectly stated that the vaccines haven't been tested for safety and efficacy.
- Fact: This cardiologist incorrectly stated that these vaccines might cause one to be "marked in a database and this can be used for trade, for commerce, for behavior modification, all different purposes."
- Natural immunity to COVID-19 comes with all of the serious risks associated with contracting COVID-19, including but not limited to mild symptoms, moderate symptoms, long-term effects, severe symptoms, hospitalization, and death.
- Even if you are young and healthy, the risk of serious effects from COVID-19 are far more likely and far more dangerous than anything from the COVID-19 vaccines.
- Natural immunity from having COVID-19 also means you are spreading the disease to other people while you have it. There is no risk of spreading COVID-19 as a direct result of being vaccinated.
- 30% of children who are contracting COVID-19 are developing "long-haul COVID-19," and they're contracting COVID-19 overwhelmingly from people who willfully choose not to get vaccinated.
- We have data regarding how long immunity lasts as a result of getting vaccinated. The data regarding how long natural immunity lasts is less clear.
- At the very least, immunity for vaccination has a lot less variability than natural immunity.
- We know that, regardless of whether or not a person develops natural immunity from COVID-19, a person is likely to develop better and longer-lasting immunity after a COVID-19 vaccine than anything else if that person has already had COVID-19.
The amount of spike protein is incredibly relevant, Dr. Tabzer.
Who got tabzer one of these?
Last edited by Lacius,
D
Deleted User
Guest
Also to add on to what your saying. It's a cardiologist. A heart doctor. A cardiologist is not a epidemiologist. A cardiologist has relatively no expertise on studying and understanding viruses. Or prevention
edit: I originally said virologist. However epidemiologist is probably the more accurate field for this specific scenario
Last edited by ,
"Get vaccinated or you are hurting people" is a false dilemma. You can "not get the vaccine" and "not hurt people". You can get the vaccine and still hurt people. You can get the virus and not hurt people.
"The most lethal toxic biologic agent ever injected into a human body in American history." If he said this, I would like to know when, where, and the context.
As far as arguing natural immunity vs vaccine immunity-your argument largely focuses on people never having had Covid... accusing the doctor saying that it is better to get Covid than to get the vaccine, which, again, which he didn't.
You also said that you can't get covid if you got the vaccination.
Spike proteins, which are dangerous, are a part of the ingredients of the vaccine, and would likely be a contributing factor in the "rare chance" of blood clotting--if the antibodies failed in producing. That is my understanding.
If you are so confident in your beliefs go speak with a doctor and tell them everything you are telling lacius.
So you gonna provide any sources? I still haven’t seen any sources to a single post that I’ve asked for a source on.
Last edited by The Catboy,
When you choose to not be vaccinated, you are willfully increasing the odds of spreading the disease to other people, significantly. It isn't a false dilemma.
If he's going to advocate for not getting the vaccine, then he's advocating for a significantly increased chance that the person will get COVID-19. He also said that if a person gets COVID-19, that immunity is better than getting vaccinated.
I never said this. Breakthrough infections of vaccinated people occur, but they're rare.
No evidence of clotting has been seen with the mRNA vaccines, which means it's unlikely just the spike proteins. The fact that only the viral vector vaccines have the very rare risk of clotting, and the fact that it's mostly only affecting women or certain ages, means it is at least an oversimplification of the issue to call out spike proteins as "bad." Remember too that the risk of clotting with the viral vector vaccines ranges from approximately 1 in a million to 1 in 143,000, and there are mitigations in place now to treat these conditions so they aren't severe or lethal.
Last edited by Lacius,
That's tabzer's problem they speak from the ass. Thing's that sound plausible doesn't mean they are without any backing or sources.
I can make a claim that women get paid less because they pick jobs that pay less. Which sounds like a good plausible explanation, but unless I have sources to prove it, it means nothing. Just because it sounds like a good reason doesn't mean it's correct. You need sources.
Tabzer has been going for pages and pages, and I'm already getting tired of them being a stubborn ass for no good reason.
I know, I’ve literally spent like several pages on this thread and previous threads requesting sources to their claims. It’s not about expecting a source from them, because I know won’t get it, it’s about revealing just how garage their claims are and how they aren’t backed by any actual evidence. I hoping people following along can see that despite claiming they have sources and evidence, they never provide any of them. I am hoping people following along realize that they should be suspicious of people like them and start considering that maybe their fears and concerns are unfounded. I am also doing this to keep making them need to defend their trash ideas, which means others can come in and take those ideas apart. The more I keep demanding sources, the more they keep talking, and that has been giving others more to debunk.
Choosing not to take the vaccine is not increasing odds, which I've stated before is the crux of your false dilemma.
--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
Lol.
Mmm....
Sorry, but it's not worth engaging.
Nobody is saying that not getting the vaccine magically increases your odds of contracting the virus relative to your odds before the vaccines were released. We are correctly pointing out that an unvaccinated person has significantly higher odds of contracting and spreading COVID-19 relative to a vaccinated person.
If your argument boils down to crying "false dilemma" in response to a straw man, you probably shouldn't bother. You're only going to embarrass yourself.
If you choose not to be vaccinated, you're accepting significantly higher odds that you will contract and spread the virus relative to your vaccinated counterparts. That's a fact, and that's why there's a moral imperative to get vaccinated.
Last edited by Lacius,
Don’t edit my quotes. You are the one making claims, you are the one required to provide sources. You have spent this entire thread making claims and provided 0 sources to back them up. You’ve even argued against sources that disproved your claims and provided 0 sources or pieces of evidence to back up your arguments. Why can’t your provide a single source? The most you’ve done was provide some cherry picked dodgy video, which has been dissected since being posted. Now you’ve resorted to your old bullshit of editing quotes so you can create your own straw man out of the people calling out your bullshit. I would be shocked by your arrogance but then I remember that you are the same person who believes in other debunked conspiracies and most likely is a Q-Supporter or part of some other political cult
Last edited by The Catboy,
If I did not properly paraphrase the claims that you wanted citations for, then please clarify. Recently you asked for a source in response to a claim that "we don't know the future." You want a source for that? Lol no. Provide a source that says we do know the future. Most issues I've had was due to the misrepresentation and poor phrasing of the sources already provided. In the fact check of the doctor, I made direct references to the provided article and to the interview I presented.
Then your memory fails you.
It's not a moral imperative to preemptively take on a risk to prevent the risk of another. People have choices other than "take the vaccine or kill people." It's not my moral imperative to take a vaccine so you can feel safe.
Last edited by tabzer,
D
Deleted User
Guest
I like how you try to downplay things. (intense sarcasm if you can't tell)
"so you can feel safe"
You know. there's a difference between feelings, and fact tabzer. I swore some person said that before near your political spectrum.
Fact wise, covid 19 has killed more than cancer at this point. Second leading cause of death in the United States. There's no feeling to being safe. You're either playing with fire, risking yourself getting sick and others. Or your not. If you can take the vaccine, have no medical reason to believe you cannot, such as a immune disorder or issue, by all means you should take it.
Last edited by ,
You made comments regarding concerns about possible future outcomes. The source I requested was in regards to there being evidence as to why we should be concerned about possible effects of vaccines years down the line. This wasn't a request to predict the future, this was a request to see sources as to why we should be concerned? What evidence is there to suggest possible health concerns 10+ years down the line?
The interesting note is that you are trying to move the goal away from your other previous claims. You've made countless claims in this thread and been asked to provide sources to all of them. You've made claims that unvaccinated people aren't the problem, what's the source? You've made claims that herd immunity isn't very effective (or something akin to that,) what are your sources? You've made quite a number of claims in this thread, then processed to dance around source requests.
Here's literally a quote you saying that you have "evidence and facts," yet you've not provided any of the evidence you've claimed to have.
Last edited by The Catboy,
Assuming my political spectrum is kind of a problem that is irrelevant to the conjecture.
Saying I should get vaccinated is like your unwanted and unwarranted medical opinion.
And it's based on how you feel about the collective of what you read about a subject where knowledge is admittedly limited (by the same sources that reccomend the vaccine no less @Lilith Valentine)
"Fact wise, covid 19 has killed more than cancer at this point."
Add that to the propaganda collection.
You talking shit about sources, while providing none of your own, that's just laughable.
Similar threads
-
- Locked
- No one is chatting at the moment.
-
-
-
-
If your throat closes, putting oxygen in your mouth will not solve anything - as you will be introducing oxygen prior to the area of obstruction
-
-
You either need to be intubated to bypass obstruction or create a stoma inferior to the the area of obstruction to survive
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
@
JuanMena:
It was waiting for you to order another one.
Seems like, your PSU was waiting for a partner. -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
